It’s been a fast paced start to the year for Apple. The electronics superpower has rolled out a new laptop, new desktops, and even a new iPod Shuffle -- priced for the recession at $79. However, what would normally make for another record setting start of the year for Apple is fast turning south as fears of the recession has sent customers fleeing from Apple's pricey luxury lineup.

After seeing its sales growth surpassed by PCs for the first time in months in January, the latest figures show that February was far worse for Apple. The NPD Group has released its sales figures for the month and they are worse than even Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster's pessimistic forecast.

Both iPod and Mac sales were down 16 percent year-to-year. The worst predicted by analysts was around a 4 percent drop. Analysts were somewhat predicting the drop as last February was a particularly good month for Apple, and Apple only released its new desktops and iPod in March.

Munster's new predictions place total iPod sales for the quarter ending in March at around 9 to 10 million units. He predicts that 2 to 2.2 million Mac computers will ship in the same period. The Street is predicting 9.5 million iPods. These figures are not significantly worse than last year, and represent analyst optimism that Apple's new products will lead to a strong March.

Thus, the real test for Apple will be how its sales have fared at the end of March. While January was a letdown and February was undeniably downward trending for Apple, a strong March could salvage an otherwise rocky quarter.

One potential ace in Apple's sleeve is the announcement of the iPhone OS version 3.0 later today. No one knows quite when Apple will release the new OS, but many are speculating wildly, including guessing at new hardware (every past x.0 release has been accompanied by new hardware). Big news could stave off the Wall Street wolves for a little while, even if Apple's sales disappoint.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just Crysis? WTF are you talking about? Crysis wasn't even all that great, and it's over a year old now, so I have no idea why you picked that as your example... Wait, yes I do know why -- it's because you are incapable of presenting a worthwhile argument that is based in reality and supported with factual evidence.

Who cares if new games are multiplatform as long as they are fun? Your comment about "not much sense" in PC gaming is purely subjective. Maybe for you that is the case, but as you have demonstrated time and again, you are not demonstrative of typical users.

Here's a different perspective. Personally, I can't stand Sony's controller layout, and I greatly prefer Microsoft's gamepad. I also can't stand Sony in general, so I won't be buying one of their consoles any time soon. The Wii has terrible graphics and few games that interest me. That leaves the 360, and though I admittedly do want one, I really don't need it. I mostly play FPS games, and a gamepad is not suited to that genre. PC also has the benefit of better graphics.

"After Crysis is gone there's not much sense to buy gaming PC - everything major and/or big budget is multiplatform or console-only these days."

Spoken from someone that is obviously not a PC gamer. Games on PC are still the best. Better graphics, better resolution, better mods, better control. Nothing can match a keyboard and mouse for full range motion and pinpoint accuracy in a 3d shooter or FPS.

Nope, no progress in graphics since Crysis release. Sad but true. Until I see another big budget PC exclusive that pushes rendering ABOVE what the Crysis showed us - I'll stay by my opinion. Where's Crysis 2? Nowhere to be found. Why? Because Crytek is busy porting their stuff to consoles, trying to compensate for their massive losses due to PC piracy. Make your own conclusions out of it, I don't care and I won't persuade you.

The fact that PC games haven't really surpassed Crysis for image quality yet is irrelevant if consoles haven't even reached that level. You're talking about higher image quality from newer rendering engines and game content, but the problem is that the consoles fall short on antialiasing and various filter and shader effects. That's the cost of having a 3-generation-old GPU.

quote: You're talking about higher image quality from newer rendering engines and game content, but the problem is that the consoles fall short on antialiasing and various filter and shader effects.

Who cares about those few un-antialiased pixels on screen if console is MUCH MUCH cheaper than a gaming PC? For most people it's pretty idiotic affair to pay extra grand just to get a few better looking pixels on screen. NOT. EVEN. FUNNY.

LOL. How very typical of you: argue one thing, then as soon as you are proven wrong, say that it doesn't matter.

First of all, way to try and minimalize the difference by saying 'just a few pixels.' Some graphical elements, such as the trees in Fallout3, look downright terrible on the consoles, and that comes down to more than just a few pixels. Secondly, Judging by the popularity of 8800/9800 and 4700 series graphics cards, I would say that quite a few people care. Third, you are completely ignoring the fact that a PC does way more things than a console, and if you are going to buy a new PC anyway, why not spend several $100 more to make it a decent gamer? Also, you are inflating the cost of a gaming rig (shame on you). You can build a very solid gamer for $700-$1000, which unless a console costs zero or negative dollars, is not an extra grand.

quote: Judging by the popularity of 8800/9800 and 4700 series graphics cards...

...people prefer to invest their money in expensive GPUs instead of games, hence the piracy and exodus of gaming studios to the console or cross platform side due to this piracy. No amount of marketing money from AMD or nVidia will change that, unfortunately.

quote: why not spend several $100 more to make it a decent gamer?

Why not spend less than that and get more great big budget games like GeoW 2 or Uncharted by buying a console?

You can call me blind (metaphorically) all you want, but if this is true then you literally do have vision problems. Your right to judge aesthetics (ahem, Apple) is hereby revoked.

quote: ...people prefer to invest their money in expensive GPUs instead of games, hence the piracy and exodus of gaming studios to the console or cross platform side due to this piracy. No amount of marketing money from AMD or nVidia will change that, unfortunately.

Shifting the argument away from you failure again, lovely.

quote: Why not spend less than that and get more great big budget games like GeoW 2 or Uncharted by buying a console?

You missed the point, as usual. If you are in the market for a new computer and you don't own a console, then the cost to boost your purchase to a decent gaming rig is the same as what it would cost to get a console in addition to the computer. And again, you're ignoring the fact that there are lots of great games for PC. You're also ignoring the fact that games are frequently discounted on Steam, while consolse games are generally more expensive because they have to make back their losses on the hardware.

quote: If you are in the market for a new computer and you don't own a console, then the cost to boost your purchase to a decent gaming rig is the same as what it would cost to get a console in addition to the computer.

That's only if you hand build your computer which is very rare case in general. So your arguments are not applicable to the general public. Unfortunately far from all games are on Steam (where's new Riddick game, Assault on Dark Athena? not on Steam! oh nooooeesss, Ronald Hubbs just told me it MUST be on Steam!) so this is moot too. And you are ignoring the fact that almost all these great games on PC are multiplatform so they exist on consoles, which negates a reason to buy a gaming PC.

quote: That's only if you hand build your computer which is very rare case in general. So your arguments are not applicable to the general public. Unfortunately far from all games are on Steam (where's new Riddick game, Assault on Dark Athena? not on Steam! oh nooooeesss, Ronald Hubbs just told me it MUST be on Steam!) so this is moot too. And you are ignoring the fact that almost all these great games on PC are multiplatform so they exist on consoles, which negates a reason to buy a gaming PC.

You continue to fumble around the issue (I almost said dance around, but then realized that it would imply a level of gracefulness, of which you have seem to have none). I never said that Steam has all games, I simply said that the games it does have are frequently discounted. The fact that digital distribution is growing means that sales will become more common as competitors to Steam inevitably arise. Also, while you get the best deal by hand-building, it is not required in order to get a gaming rig for under $1K. Perhaps you should look into these things before you comment.

By the way, have you given Scientology any serious thought? You seem like prime candidate.

quote: Why should I care about your Steam argument about "old PC games being discounted" when the old console games are also discounted? You miss the basic logic here.

No, you fail at reading. Where did you get the word "old" from? It isn't from any of my comments, so next time you use quotes, how about actually copying what I said into them. But we can talk about 'old' games too if you want. How cheap can you find a new copy of Bioshock for the PS3 or 360? I got it for $5 on Steam a couple months ago.

Clearly you don't use Steam or you would know that games often launch at a discounted prices and that every few weeks they put large portions of the their catalog on sale. This isn't just for old games, it also includes new ones.

You will likely need to buy or own a display, so that has to be factored into the cost and also will likely have to buy or own a decent sound system.

Not a necessity but it is part of the total cost of ownership of a console. A self-contained gaming system for a PC is cheaper than a self-contained gaming console. It's actually common sense.

With regards to the Steam Distribution system, this is a lot like Xbox Live is attempting to be, but Steam is far more useful in what it offers, all around and has a very large reach and massive installed user base. And, it is FREE, unlike Xbox Live.

"For most people it's pretty idiotic affair to pay extra grand just to get a few better looking pixels on screen. NOT. EVEN. FUNNY. "

You are clueless on this. Just because a game isn't PC only, doesnt mean its not a great PC game. Most games today are written for all platforms - this doesn't make PC any better or worse. Just because You aren't a PC gamer doesn't mean its not a great platform... Just like because I don't personally like the Mac OS, doesn't make it a bad platform.

And a gaming PC is more than just a game cosole - its also a PC. You purchase a low and PC and a console. For the same price, I have both in one, and faster. It's not any more expensive... Clueless.

quote: Most games today are written for all platforms - this doesn't make PC any better or worse.

No, I didn't mean PC is better or worse, I meant just this: gaming PC is just too expensive for most people for very little return on investment. It wasn't true when big budget blockbuster PC exclusives like Crysis were developed regularly, but since these are gone forever, gaming PC lost its status and became a niche machine. Doesn't mean it's worse of course.

Like I said - the cost of a low end PC + a console is about the same as a good gaming PC

" gaming PC lost its status and became a niche machine."

Right... This is why Nvidia is filthy rich and ATI is keeping AMD afloat. In a world of cheap computers with built in video cards, they sure sell an aweful lot of video cards - even in this tight economy.

quote: Like I said - the cost of a low end PC + a console is about the same as a good gaming PC

Like I said - you're gonna miss a lot of great games if you go the PC only route. That's plain stupid path for most people, i.e. all those who aren't tech literate. From their point of view missing great big budget games while not saving any money is _dumb_.

quote: This is why Nvidia is filthy rich and ATI is keeping AMD afloat. In a world of cheap computers with built in video cards, they sure sell an aweful lot of video cards - even in this tight economy

By the way Apple is filthy rich for EXACTLY the same reason - niche "elite" high margin goods for a little group of buyers with lotsa extra dough are goood for bottom line, ya know ;-) Apple's and nVidia's experience proves this point, now doesn't it?

"I really need a console though, as I can't afford a high-end pc. I don't get everything handed to me by my parents so that is in the future. That is where consoles beat it out, with its dirt cheap price."

Using anonymous user comments as supposed backing for your argument? That's pretty lame, even for you.

And by the way, it's called a job. If you work hard and get one that pays well, then you can afford to pay a bit extra for better quality. For someone who continually defends Apple's overpriced garbage, you of all people should be able to understand that (though in this case you actually get something for the cost premium). And the comment about parents buying things for you is just stupid because most gamers are adults, if you bother to check recent gaming statistics.

And what was that line of yours, something about: "who are you to judge how someone spends their money? let's see your credentials please." Hypocrite.

quote: And by the way, it's called a job. If you work hard and get one that pays well, then you can afford to pay a bit extra for better quality.

That's a good argument, and it explains why PCs are relegated to a niche status of expensive "elite" gaming machines with the ocean of cheapo consoles surrounding them these days. A few people who can afford expensive gaming PC buy it, the rest, the masses - they just buy cheapo consoles like Xbox 360.

quote: who are you to judge how someone spends their money?

I'm not judging how someone spends their money, idiot. I'm just saying that gaming PCs have moved to the expensive "elite" niche, leaving "cheapo machine for masses" status to Xbox 360 and Wii. I DON'T CARE HOW PEOPLE SPEND THEIR MONEY. Is that clear?